Balancing the obstacles and the leverage you can use and bring into the process, you then need to consider to what extent you can expect the process to move based on your advocacy efforts. Setting a feasible advocacy objective can range from starting a discussion to closing a decision:
- raising public awareness
- starting a stakeholder discussion
- changing expert thinking on an issue or option
- putting an issue on the government agenda
- getting draft legislative proposals tabled for discussion in parliament
- having your policy recommendations adopted and implemented
Of course, it is possible that the APF planning process may lead you to conclude that it is not actually feasible at the moment to move the process and waiting for a more favorable environment is prudent.
It is important to point out that in planning a policy advocacy campaign your objective should be focused on the kind of change you are targeting in the policymaking process, as you can see in the list of examples above, and not on the resulting policy outcome. For example, you may want to improve access to healthcare services for a particular minority group (your planned outcome), but in planning your advocacy initiative, you need to think how far you can move the process towards making this a reality, for example, convincing a political party to commit to this in an upcoming election manifesto. Even if you are at the point where a decision-making body is ready to pass the legislation needed to deliver your target outcome, in planning your advocacy campaign the focus needs to be on getting that legislation passed. Advocacy planning is always firmly focused on process changes and these changes in process, if achieved, will deliver an outcome.
Your advocacy objective is the kind of change you are expecting in the process, from starting a discussion to closing a decision.
The following table gives more insight into these three interrelated dimensions of strategic advocacy planning in two of our cases. In both cases, a feasible objective was set after a process of weighing the obstacles with the leverage.
Case 1: Kazakhstan
Improving One Stop Shops (2006–2007)
Policy fellow and civil servant
Mapping the obstacles/challenges:
The government’s big idea of One Stop Shops was failing and being criticized in public. The Ministry of Justice realized that the implementation of One Stop Shops was not easy within the Kazakh culture of public administration and the assumptions underlying international best practice in this area did not hold to Kazakh realities. One main advisor to the minister was seen as the sole expert in the area of One Stop Shops, and little or no policy research available.
The challenge here centered around the legitimacy of both the new research and the researcher herself. The fact that the researcher worked in the government was a good start in a fairly closed system of government. However, the researcher worked in the Civil Service Agency and had little background or reputation in advising on the area of One Stop Shops. Further, this work was done in her other roles as a PhD student in a foreign university and as a research fellow exactly on the issue of One Stop Shops, so getting the research into the decision-making process and getting it taken seriously was a real issue.
Assessing the leverage:
In this case the main leverage was a combination of the following:
- Long-term relationships built with One Stop Shop managers and the relevant government officials by arranging trainings and foreign site visits through the Civil Service Agency.
- Research and, in essence, a program evaluation of One Stop Shops done by a civil servant researcher who understood Kazakh realities. The research using and building on international best practice, concluded with practical suggestions for improvement and a long-term training program established in collaboration with professionals from the University of Edinburgh (where the researcher was studying), which is housed in a local training organization.
- The combination of the researcher being a governmet insider (civil servant) who brought indepth knowledge of international best practices and an international network of resource people on One Stop Shop was also appealing.
- Convincing the main advisor to the Ministry of Justice on One Stop Shops that the research and its findings were worth using in the improvement of the One Stop Shop system in Kazakhstan.
- Broad criticism of the One Stop Shop model in the media put a lot more pressure on the Ministry of Justice to find a solution.
Setting a feasible advocacy objective:
Knowing the relatively closed and hierarchical decision-making practices of the Kazakh government, the researcher sought to influence the expert thinking and drive at least some of the solutions by putting a new option on the table for improving the implementation of One Stop Shops in the upcoming decision-making process. Her proposal was a combination of an institutional fix in the short term (a new model for implementing One Stop Shops) combined with a longer-term capacity building approach. The fact that she was working from the inside of government made this considerably easier. She explicitly mentioned that this would not have been easy at all for an outside expert or someone from civil society.
Case 3: Macedonia
Introducing and passing a Patients’ Bill of Rights (2006–2008)
Policy fellow and think tank (Studiorum)
Mapping the obstacles/challenges:
The election of a new government in the summer of 2006 provided a window of opportunity for this piece of fresh research produced earlier that year. The new minister for health was looking for fresh initiatives to take forward in his new mandate. The research was also timely as Macedonia had already committed to delivering a Patients’ Bill of Rights in the EU accession process.
The challenges for this advocacy effort came first from finding a way to get the research into the hands of the minister and convince him it was a priority area. Second, reframing the provision of health services to protect the rights of patients was something that was immediately met with skepticism from the very powerful medical professional community. They were afraid that this would change the legal position of doctors with regard to insurance claims.
Assessing the leverage:
In this case the main leverage was a combination of the following:
- The appointment of a close friend and former colleague as an advisor to the inister of health. At the beginning of his appointment, the advisor was looking for new initiatives to put to the minister and immediately liked the idea of a Patients’ Bill of Rights.
- A piece of research that had done all the ministry’s homework in this area, including a survey of international best practice, regional practice in the area, and a public opinion survey in Macedonia showing support for the idea.
- The appointment of the researcher as NGO representative to the ministerial working group to draft the legislation and also on the parliamentary working groups to follow the parliamentary stages of passing the bill.
- An already established reputation of working with the Ministry of Health in a different health-related area.
- An established name as the one think tank/NGO in Macedonia that was a member of the network that had established the European Charter on Patients’ Rights.
Setting a feasible advocacy objective:
Once the door to the minister was open and he was committed, few real obstacles impeded the passage of the bill, which with a lot of effort, eventually did happen in July 2008.
The following questions are designed to help you consider your own project from this strategic perspective:
Advocacy planning checklist
Consider the key strategic questions for your advocacy plans:
Mapping the current obstacles/challenges
- What’s holding back the process from moving in the direction you wish?
- What obstacles or challenges exist to having your proposals accepted and acted upon? For example, in terms of the decision–making process, politics, interests, knowledge, or capacity.
Assessing your leverage
- What have you got that will catalyze movement of the process in the direction you want?
- What combination of new insights, evidence, supporters, and opportunities can you use to move the process?
- Is this combination enough to overcome the obstacles and challenges you identified and enough to achieve your objective(s)?
Setting a feasible advocacy objective
- What kind of change can you realistically expect to see in the decision-making process?
- Given the leverage you have got and obstacles outlined, how far can you realistically expect to move the process?
Remember not to get too stuck on these questions at the beginning, as the detailed mapping and planning that follow will provide much more insight into how to nuance or shape your answers at this level.